Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="TheCusian, post: 1291506, member: 2585"]
[B]1. He couldn't talk about it until that day. They ran the story from the kids perspective knowing that the school couldn't say a word about it until NSD. Refusing and couldn't are worlds apart.[/B] There are a thousand ways around this and it's done all of the time. You can go off the record, speak in generalities, etc.

So break NCAA rules. Or be vague. Either of which this team of journos would have spun. There is little trust between the two for a reason.

2. [B]He does have a right to follow up - but his 1st question?! I don't blame Shafer for being upset.[/B] Who cares when the question pops up?

Shafer. After a grueling stretch of recruiting. After he said he wanted to talk about the kids they signed. After he said that it was great to finally be able to talk about these kids he and his staff have been recruiting for 14 months or more.

[B]3. He explained rather well: They looked at who they were recruiting when the OC changes took place AND they drop kids who don't fulfill their end of the bargain[/B]. So he may or may not have answered the question anyway. Why is Bailey the bad guy?

Well for one - he didn't ask about any of the players that did sign. I'd love for him to dog Shafer on why he thinks Dungey is the answer at QB. But instead we get a 6 month year old story that is largely not that crazy in the world of recruiting. Where's Bailey  indictment of Doyle Grimes for not signing with us after he committed?

We move on: It's horrible and lets write scathing articles (Bud - we're looking at you).
They move on: Staff unable to hold onto recruits.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?